Last week, the Florida Tech shooting took the headlines of almost all newspapers, so I recalled this movie. With a little bit of black humor, this is a predictive movie full of warning and criticism. But such predictions are always for reference only, and benefits are eternal.
We have been reviewing, we have been making mistakes.
The film begins with a birthday party, a happy ordinary American family, a room full of happiness and hope. However, on the first working day after the party, the male host of the family was shot and killed in his own office. He died with him and more than a dozen colleagues from the same company. Subsequently, the man's wife filed a lawsuit in the court, demanding compensation from the gun company that manufactures and sells murderous guns. After two years of hard work, the court finally accepted the prosecution and the procedure entered the stage of jury selection.
The story really begins here.
The case occurred in Philadelphia, an ancient city that has always been full of conflicts. As one of the important southern colonies, the racial conflicts in the city have continued from the Civil War to the present, and the 1993 "Philadelphia Story" explored the issue of public attitudes towards homosexuality and AIDS. There are indications that this is a place that is customary and suitable for making history.
The litigation concerning the case has received widespread media attention from the beginning, because it is too much like a war, a war of power, money and ethical beliefs. In all the lawsuits against gun companies in the history of the United States, the plaintiff as an ordinary citizen has never won. The defendant believed that the shooting occurred because of the mental problems of the gunholders themselves, not the responsibility of the weapon manufacturers. However, the plaintiff believes that if it were not because gun companies were blindly pursuing the maximization of profits, if they were willing to control the sales channels of guns, so many people would certainly not die innocently.
It all makes sense, and it all makes sense, so our protagonist couple appeared on the stage. They don't mind who wins, they just want to make a fortune in this lawsuit. The man Nick was approved by the prosecution and defense to enter the jury, while the woman Marlee gave two lawyers a note: The Jury for Sale during the first trial. Whoever is willing to pay will win.
In subsequent interrogations, Nick demonstrated his control in the jury and proved the authenticity of the auction. Faced with this unexpected situation, the plaintiff's lawyer and the defendant's chief think tank had to start considering new countermeasures. But what is interesting is that for various reasons, they did not report the matter to the judge.
In the American judicial system, the jury bears extremely important responsibilities, at least this is reflected in many film and television works. In this film, the portrayal of the role of the jury has reached a new height, and the defendant firmly believes that choosing the right juror represents the victory of this case. They hired the best expert heavily, an evil old man named Fitch. He manages a team of experts, starting with monitoring the private lives of each candidate juror, analyzing their personality and psychology, and selecting members who will be biased toward the gun company. Because almost every juror was carefully selected by him, Fitch couldn't easily give up. He can only find the manipulator in the jury as soon as possible, and then defeat that person.
Compared with the practical and utilitarian Fitch, the plaintiff's lawyer Rohr is close to an idealist. He believes that he is the righteous side, and justice will win. Facing the jury's sales advertisement, Rohr ignored it, and even flew into a rage when he knew his assistant was secretly investigating.
As the case progressed, danger approached Nick and Marlee step by step, and innocent people began to die because of them. Different from the confidence in the first part of the film, the two realize that things are not that simple. Shake, guilt and fear begin to take root in their hearts. But at this time, there was a little more perseverance and perseverance in their eyes. That pure gaze seems to be beyond the range that money can conquer. And Fitch's background investigation on Nick has also made progress at this time. This couple is by no means as simple as they seem to be...
Most of the film's time is spent on two scenes, the courtroom and the jury discussion room. Therefore, there are often large sections of dialogue and nuanced psychological portrayals. And the most outstanding part of the film is also in the debate. The dispute between Fitch and Rohr in the bathroom of the court regarding justice and faith, and the last discussion by the jury before the announcement of the result, were full of moving words.
In the multiple trials of the shooting case, the random situation of gun sales was shocking. With such uncontrolled sales, the suffering of families injured by gun violence cannot be healed for a lifetime. The deceased can only live in the memorials of relatives and friends, but the living people do have the ability to protect more people from gun violence.
This case is a baptism for everyone involved, allowing them to recognize themselves again.
Nick said: I didn't do anything, they just listened to their own soul's choice.
This is a small step, but also a big step, but unfortunately, this is just a movie.
Serious themes, simple scenes, vigorous struggles, innocent victims. The film hardly made any jokes, did not spend any time relaxing atmosphere, but it was not a bit dull. The director controls the rhythm very well, the climax is repeated but not abrupt, and there is often a sense of thrilling. At the same time, the film interprets everyone's psychological changes very convincingly, and the changes in the mood of those people on the screen can be felt almost at every moment. And people can't help but ask themselves, if we were them, would we do that too? This should be called resonance.
The truth is not revealed until the end, and all clues have the best answer. Good people have always been good people, and bad people have always been bad people. There is no gray area in reality. It is a profound and interesting movie.
Now I want to talk about the cast, even today it seems that such a lineup is gorgeous. Two senior actors, Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman, play Fitch and Rohr separately. Needless to say, their acting skills are, to paraphrase a common saying, sparks are everywhere. Gene's aura and movements from the beginning to the final failure and decadence are deeply contagious, making it impossible for people to sympathize with him. Dustin's Rohr is relatively less difficult, and the requirements for strength are naturally high. I personally think that it is quite satisfactory.
Marlee is played by Rachel Weisz. The explorer girl in "The Mummy" has a gentle and atmospheric beauty. She is very suitable for such a persistent and courageous role. Marlee is somewhat similar to the character Tessa in the movie that helped her win the Oscar. It’s just that I think "The Immortal Gardener" is actually very boring (I am a shallow person). By the way, Rachel will star in two movies next year: "The Mummy 3" and "Sin City 2". She is also a powerful actor who walks freely in various types of films.
Finally, the actor who plays Nick is John Cusack, whom I admire a lot, and is criticized as the most British American actor. The more popular film should be the smart policeman in "Prison in the Air". In fact, he has always been best at playing various types, especially decadent middle-aged men, who are very attractive to women. Nick plays a role that seems simple but complicated. Recommend movies "Must Love dogs" and "High Fidelity". I have always felt that every boy should watch a movie like "High Fidelity", which will help promote mutual understanding between the sexes. Uh, it seems to digress.
Although it is a human right not to issue a gun prohibition order, in the absence of the system, every life that disappears because of this lacks value. The applause at the moment the court pronounced the verdict has actually explained a lot of problems. I hope that one day movies are more than just movies.
--------------------------------
Written before, some places are out of date~~ It is irrelevant to the overall situation and the above has not been changed
View more about Runaway Jury reviews
